When I was a boy, (many,many moons ago I hasten to add!), there used to be acommon saying, that you heard everywhere, namely "You can't argue black is white". This saying had nothing to do with race, but merely tried to express the point that some unscrupulous persons out there are willing to lie through their teeth to defend their dishonesty to the extent of violating axiomatic logic, ie equating the primary color 'black' with 'white, although to the human visual system it should be obvious, incontrovertible and axiomatic that these two colours can be distinguished by the immediate optical property of their difference. We are bordering on the verges of paranoid delusion here, but the point taht people will lie away 'obvious, incontrovertible axioms' to bolster their follies still remains. The phrase is very old and probably is ancient Roman.
Aw, but come on, go with it, she's encouraging IQ study! Demand follow through! I'm going to use this crap in my next argument on the subject, see how they handle it.
a lot of the nonsense about sex, race, iq etc is perpetuated in large part because it has a great deal of truth amongst the elites. amongst the elites, iq is relatively unimportant (restriction of range).
elites tend to be anti-traditionalist--thus sex differences tend to shrink amongst the elites, or in a few cases even reverse--think of all the 5'7" computer nerds who dream of butt kicking babes.
elites are naturally anti-racist and internationalist, because they feel they have more in common with the elites of other races and nations than with the working class of their own race and nation.
the same goes for many sociological theories, such as labeling theory. it is probably true for most elites, that if they were labeled as somehow bad, that they would be far more likely to behave badly. most elites are simply unwilling to live as proletarians.
the bottom line is, that there are a somewhat different set of truths for elites and non-elites. unfortunately most elites do not recognize this. for example, an elite who despises the military lifestyle cannot recognize that there is still a need for a strong military, even if they could never stand being in the military.
also, the elites (at least in the West) do not consciously view themselves as a group: thus they are vulnerable to stupid concessions to non-elites. western elites must realize that they are a group, that their group has the right to exist as a group, and that their group is needed to run societies. identifying with a particular race, religion, sex, or even ideology may be avoidable, but human beings in general cannot function effectively without some sense of group identity, even if their group identity is not a traditional one.
Clueless, maybe. But amazingly positive, in that she's basically parroting Steven Pinker's argument for allowing debate/research into these questions.
Since that's the right thing to advocate, I'm inclined to cut her a bit of slack w.r.t. the silliness where we don't really know what IQ or race mean when someone wants to talk about the black/white IQ difference, but we know exactly what both mean when someone wants to talk about the impact of lead paint exposure on kids, or stereotype threat.
S. Begley had a column in one of the WSJ back sections for years before disappearing awhile ago. Still cannot be induced to read conflicting or contradictive source material it appears, only the pertaining squid ink obscuring and transforming, inverting and perverting anything written, said, indicated or supported.
This was sort of cute:
Battered by a one-two punch of declining readership and ad pages, Newsweek magazine is getting an extreme makeover this year that will include a large circulation reduction, deep cuts in operating costs, and a new effort to attract advertisers by concentrating on an elite audience.
According to The New York Times, executives at Newsweek say the retooled magazine will focus on being a "thought leader" that focuses on telling readers how to think about news, rather than telling people what happened in the last week. The plan, similar to the editorial outlook espoused by The Economist magazine, is aimed at helping the newsweekly better compete in the face of competition from cable TV and the Internet. The transformation will likely include more analysis, commentary, and news-related feature articles.
According to The New York Times, executives at Newsweek say the retooled magazine will focus on being a "thought leader" that focuses on telling readers how to think about news, rather than telling people what happened in the last week.
So are they going to change their name from Newsweek to Thoughtweek?
Or maybe Doubleplusgoodthinkweek?
Frankly, I think it's pretty fun that they can't admit that this was what they were doing all along anyway.
According to The New York Times, executives at Newsweek say the retooled magazine will focus on being a "thought leader" that focuses on telling readers how to think about news, rather than telling people what happened in the last week.I sincerely hope that they fail at their goals. The last thing we need is an even greater percentage of our country's elite reading drivel like that Begly column. I stopped reading halfway through, uggh.
No, I want them to go bankrupt and cease publication entirely. I want their editors looking for work in a declining market with nothing but their liberal biases to list on their resumes. I want these people on unemployment like the people they have impoverished with decades of advocacy for socialistic projects. And that is the nicest outcome I can wish for these people.
one problem too is that the elite is so caught up in the culture war that they have become largely blind to economic issues. this goes doubly for non-white and Jewish elites, who are scared s---less of Middle American white gentiles (does anyone really think that model minorities are stupid enough to vote themselves higher taxes as a single issue)?
it is a scandal that there is no party that represents the (non-top tier) elite, that is the upper middle class, very roughly speaking professionals who are making, or seriously aspire to make, in the range of $75,000 to $300,000 a year. of course "elite" is defined by more than income, or even one's (realistic) aspirations of income.
however, the lack of a party that represents the upper middle class is largely the fault of these elites themselves. while elites tend to associate with other elites, and in many ways identify with other elites, they have no group consciousness as elites.
i tend to believe that the first wave of modern liberalism--from 1880 to 1914, with such "luminaries" as Boas and Durkheim, and such brilliant ideas as pacifism, was largely responsible for the world wars. the late 19th century was really the first time a large number of elites believed in modern leftism. even admirable people like HG Wells had some pretty stupid ideas, eg that technical advancement had eliminated savagery, that man had really fundamentally changed since the dark ages.
nope, it is 2009, and there are a large number of people in 'advanced' countries who have beliefs very much like the stereotypical beliefs of medieval and ancient times. the culture war is hardly a new thing, even if bill o'reilly and sean hannity (and their lefty equivalents) say otherwise.
No, I want them to go bankrupt and cease publication entirely. I want their editors looking for work in a declining market with nothing but their liberal biases to list on their resumes. I want these people on unemployment like the people they have impoverished with decades of advocacy for socialistic projects. And that is the nicest outcome I can wish for these people.We should get a beer sometime. The only thing I'd add to your wish list is that they queue up at my place for a haymaker in the face from yours truly.
"Battered by a one-two punch of declining readership and ad pages, Newsweek magazine is getting an extreme makeover this year that will include a large circulation reduction, deep cuts in operating costs, and a new effort to attract advertisers by concentrating on an elite audience."
So essentially Newsweek is going to try to remake itself into the Atlantic Monthly. Lots of luck with that. I subscribed to Newsweek for many years before letting my subscription lapse last year. I couldn't take the PC propaganda and the Obama worship anymore. Sharon Begley is Newsweek's limp wristed attempt to be Steve Sailer like. The problem is she lacks Steve's intelligence, creativity, and courage.
"Battered by a one-two punch of declining readership and ad pages, Newsweek magazine is getting an extreme makeover this year that will include a large circulation reduction, deep cuts in operating costs, and a new effort to attract advertisers by concentrating on an elite audience."
I've been boycotting that rag since I read the dreadful lies about Apartheid South Africa. Living there as a teenager at the time, I used that mag to learn proper English. When I read the articles about South Africa the bias disgusted me and I vowed never to spend another cent on that shit. So I'm proud to have been a small factor in its demise.
Considering the source this is a pretty even-handed article. She says research into race and IQ is legitimate (even if she implies that there is only one correct conclusion). For Newsweek that's progress.
Is this the same Newsweek that was around in the 1970s? I remember that one, and I think I've seen it in the airport rack, but I hadn't heard anything from it, or of anyone reading it, for the last twenty years.
So essentially Newsweek is going to try to remake itself into the Atlantic Monthly. Lots of luck with that. I subscribed to Newsweek for many years before letting my subscription lapse last year. I couldn't take the PC propaganda and the Obama worship anymore.
I've been boycotting that rag since I read the dreadful lies about Apartheid South Africa.Growing up, I used to think of Newsweek as interchangable with Time and US News Reports (i.e., straight up news). About fifteen years ago, I thought of it as more like The New Republic or The American Prospect (i.e., rational liberalism). Now I think of it as more like The Nation or Mother Jones (mouth frothing moonbat-ism).
The bummer for me is how many of my moderate friends still seem to think of it in the first category, as if what they are reading is actually the news, as if it was a good magazine to "just keep up with things."
It ALWAYS read as if written by former-but-still-angry yippies, trying to anger "Republicans" like trying to anger dear old mom and dad.
It has and always had the hysterical, deaf-dumb-and-blind tone of a feminist in full hormonal rage. Or of one of those fellows who walks around, periodically stating loudly and aggressively, quite out of the blue: "I'm a DEMOCRAT! I'm a DEMOCRAT!" as if trying to get up a fist fight.
If all issues of Newsweak were stacked and set alight, I would not care to roast a marshmellow by those flames - I prefer to eat untainted food.
Is this the same Newsweek that was around in the 1970s? I remember that one, and I think I've seen it in the airport rack, but I hadn't heard anything from it, or of anyone reading it, for the last twenty years.I suspect that a lot of Newsweek subscriptions are for the lobbies of doctor's offices and other such places.
When I was a boy, (many,many moons ago I hasten to add!), there used to be acommon saying, that you heard everywhere, namely "You can't argue black is white".
ReplyDeleteThis saying had nothing to do with race, but merely tried to express the point that some unscrupulous persons out there are willing to lie through their teeth to defend their dishonesty to the extent of violating axiomatic logic, ie equating the primary color 'black' with 'white, although to the human visual system it should be obvious, incontrovertible and axiomatic that these two colours can be distinguished by the immediate optical property of their difference. We are bordering on the verges of paranoid delusion here, but the point taht people will lie away 'obvious, incontrovertible axioms' to bolster their follies still remains.
The phrase is very old and probably is ancient Roman.
Aw, but come on, go with it, she's encouraging IQ study! Demand follow through! I'm going to use this crap in my next argument on the subject, see how they handle it.
ReplyDeleteyou know it is a silly article because freerepublic allowed it to be posted.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2230493/posts
Were there *any* correct statements of fact in that MSM propaganda piece?
ReplyDeletea lot of the nonsense about sex, race, iq etc is perpetuated in large part because it has a great deal of truth amongst the elites. amongst the elites, iq is relatively unimportant (restriction of range).
ReplyDeleteelites tend to be anti-traditionalist--thus sex differences tend to shrink amongst the elites, or in a few cases even reverse--think of all the 5'7" computer nerds who dream of butt kicking babes.
elites are naturally anti-racist and internationalist, because they feel they have more in common with the elites of other races and nations than with the working class of their own race and nation.
the same goes for many sociological theories, such as labeling theory. it is probably true for most elites, that if they were labeled as somehow bad, that they would be far more likely to behave badly. most elites are simply unwilling to live as proletarians.
the bottom line is, that there are a somewhat different set of truths for elites and non-elites. unfortunately most elites do not recognize this. for example, an elite who despises the military lifestyle cannot recognize that there is still a need for a strong military, even if they could never stand being in the military.
also, the elites (at least in the West) do not consciously view themselves as a group: thus they are vulnerable to stupid concessions to non-elites. western elites must realize that they are a group, that their group has the right to exist as a group, and that their group is needed to run societies. identifying with a particular race, religion, sex, or even ideology may be avoidable, but human beings in general cannot function effectively without some sense of group identity, even if their group identity is not a traditional one.
Clueless, maybe. But amazingly positive, in that she's basically parroting Steven Pinker's argument for allowing debate/research into these questions.
ReplyDeleteSince that's the right thing to advocate, I'm inclined to cut her a bit of slack w.r.t. the silliness where we don't really know what IQ or race mean when someone wants to talk about the black/white IQ difference, but we know exactly what both mean when someone wants to talk about the impact of lead paint exposure on kids, or stereotype threat.
S. Begley had a column in one of the WSJ back sections for years before disappearing awhile ago.
ReplyDeleteStill cannot be induced to read conflicting or contradictive source material it appears, only the pertaining squid ink obscuring and transforming, inverting and perverting anything written, said,
indicated or supported.
This was sort of cute:
Battered by a one-two punch of declining readership and ad pages, Newsweek magazine is getting an extreme makeover this year that will include a large circulation reduction, deep cuts in operating costs, and a new effort to attract advertisers by concentrating on an elite audience.
According to The New York Times, executives at Newsweek say the retooled magazine will focus on being a "thought leader" that focuses on telling readers how to think about news, rather than telling people what happened in the last week. The plan, similar to the editorial outlook espoused by The Economist magazine, is aimed at helping the newsweekly better compete in the face of competition from cable TV and the Internet. The transformation will likely include more analysis, commentary, and news-related feature articles.
1/17/09
i started reading that article but i stopped when i saw that lady's picture
ReplyDeleteAccording to The New York Times, executives at Newsweek say the retooled magazine will focus on being a "thought leader" that focuses on telling readers how to think about news, rather than telling people what happened in the last week.
ReplyDeleteSo are they going to change their name from Newsweek to Thoughtweek?
Or maybe Doubleplusgoodthinkweek?
Frankly, I think it's pretty fun that they can't admit that this was what they were doing all along anyway.
According to The New York Times, executives at Newsweek say the retooled magazine will focus on being a "thought leader" that focuses on telling readers how to think about news, rather than telling people what happened in the last week.I sincerely hope that they fail at their goals. The last thing we need is an even greater percentage of our country's elite reading drivel like that Begly column. I stopped reading halfway through, uggh.
ReplyDeleteNo, I want them to go bankrupt and cease publication entirely. I want their editors looking for work in a declining market with nothing but their liberal biases to list on their resumes. I want these people on unemployment like the people they have impoverished with decades of advocacy for socialistic projects. And that is the nicest outcome I can wish for these people.
one problem too is that the elite is so caught up in the culture war that they have become largely blind to economic issues. this goes doubly for non-white and Jewish elites, who are scared s---less of Middle American white gentiles (does anyone really think that model minorities are stupid enough to vote themselves higher taxes as a single issue)?
ReplyDeleteit is a scandal that there is no party that represents the (non-top tier) elite, that is the upper middle class, very roughly speaking professionals who are making, or seriously aspire to make, in the range of $75,000 to $300,000 a year. of course "elite" is defined by more than income, or even one's (realistic) aspirations of income.
however, the lack of a party that represents the upper middle class is largely the fault of these elites themselves. while elites tend to associate with other elites, and in many ways identify with other elites, they have no group consciousness as elites.
i tend to believe that the first wave of modern liberalism--from 1880 to 1914, with such "luminaries" as Boas and Durkheim, and such brilliant ideas as pacifism, was largely responsible for the world wars. the late 19th century was really the first time a large number of elites believed in modern leftism. even admirable people like HG Wells had some pretty stupid ideas, eg that technical advancement had eliminated savagery, that man had really fundamentally changed since the dark ages.
nope, it is 2009, and there are a large number of people in 'advanced' countries who have beliefs very much like the stereotypical beliefs of medieval and ancient times. the culture war is hardly a new thing, even if bill o'reilly and sean hannity (and their lefty equivalents) say otherwise.
No, I want them to go bankrupt and cease publication entirely. I want their editors looking for work in a declining market with nothing but their liberal biases to list on their resumes. I want these people on unemployment like the people they have impoverished with decades of advocacy for socialistic projects. And that is the nicest outcome I can wish for these people.We should get a beer sometime. The only thing I'd add to your wish list is that they queue up at my place for a haymaker in the face from yours truly.
ReplyDelete"similar to the editorial outlook espoused by The Economist magazine"
ReplyDeleteSo they intend to push the line that money is the only thing that matters and loyalty to a nation or anything bigger than yourself is wicked?
"Battered by a one-two punch of declining readership and ad pages, Newsweek magazine is getting an extreme makeover this year that will include a large circulation reduction, deep cuts in operating costs, and a new effort to attract advertisers by concentrating on an elite audience."
ReplyDeleteSo essentially Newsweek is going to try to remake itself into the Atlantic Monthly. Lots of luck with that. I subscribed to Newsweek for many years before letting my subscription lapse last year. I couldn't take the PC propaganda and the Obama worship anymore. Sharon Begley is Newsweek's limp wristed attempt to be Steve Sailer like. The problem is she lacks Steve's intelligence, creativity, and courage.
Ronduck and Svigor:
ReplyDeleteOther than the part about getting punched out, isn't that all in the process of happening to most print journalists? I'm not sure how much of th
"Battered by a one-two punch of declining readership and ad pages, Newsweek magazine is getting an extreme makeover this year that will include a large circulation reduction, deep cuts in operating costs, and a new effort to attract advertisers by concentrating on an elite audience."
ReplyDeleteI've been boycotting that rag since I read the dreadful lies about Apartheid South Africa. Living there as a teenager at the time, I used that mag to learn proper English. When I read the articles about South Africa the bias disgusted me and I vowed never to spend another cent on that shit. So I'm proud to have been a small factor in its demise.
Considering the source this is a pretty even-handed article. She says research into race and IQ is legitimate (even if she implies that there is only one correct conclusion). For Newsweek that's progress.
ReplyDeleteIs this the same Newsweek that was around in the 1970s? I remember that one, and I think I've seen it in the airport rack, but I hadn't heard anything from it, or of anyone reading it, for the last twenty years.
ReplyDelete"We should get a beer sometime."
ReplyDeleteFunny, I would have taken you as a white wine and brie guy.
So essentially Newsweek is going to try to remake itself into the Atlantic Monthly. Lots of luck with that. I subscribed to Newsweek for many years before letting my subscription lapse last year. I couldn't take the PC propaganda and the Obama worship anymore.
ReplyDeleteI've been boycotting that rag since I read the dreadful lies about Apartheid South Africa.Growing up, I used to think of Newsweek as interchangable with Time and US News Reports (i.e., straight up news). About fifteen years ago, I thought of it as more like The New Republic or The American Prospect (i.e., rational liberalism). Now I think of it as more like The Nation or Mother Jones (mouth frothing moonbat-ism).
The bummer for me is how many of my moderate friends still seem to think of it in the first category, as if what they are reading is actually the news, as if it was a good magazine to "just keep up with things."
Newsweek was always ranting trash.
ReplyDeleteIt ALWAYS read as if written by former-but-still-angry yippies, trying to anger "Republicans" like trying to anger dear old mom and dad.
It has and always had the hysterical, deaf-dumb-and-blind tone of a feminist in full hormonal rage. Or of one of those fellows who walks around, periodically stating loudly and aggressively, quite out of the blue: "I'm a DEMOCRAT! I'm a DEMOCRAT!" as if trying to get up a fist fight.
If all issues of Newsweak were stacked and set alight, I would not care to roast a marshmellow by those flames - I prefer to eat untainted food.
anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIs this the same Newsweek that was around in the 1970s? I remember that one, and I think I've seen it in the airport rack, but I hadn't heard anything from it, or of anyone reading it, for the last twenty years.I suspect that a lot of Newsweek subscriptions are for the lobbies of doctor's offices and other such places.